Patchett & Anor v Swimming Pool & Allied Trades Association Ltd

A trade association does not automatically owe a duty of care for statements published on its website. The court must assess the website objectively and in context, applying the principles governing negligent misstatements and pure economic loss. A website directed to a defined class does not itself establish sufficient proximity. Where the website presents itself as a first step and encourages independent inquiry, that may defeat assumption of responsibility and the requirements of proximity and fairness. The medium is not decisive: an interactive website may produce a different result on different facts.

A husband and wife appealed from a Birmingham County Court decision handed down on 15 December 2008, in which His Honour Judge Worster held that the defendant trade association did not owe them a duty of care for statements on its website.

The claimants relied on the website when selecting a swimming-pool installer. The installer stopped work after becoming insolvent, and the claimants sought approximately £44,000 in financial loss. The central issue was whether the website, read objectively and in context, created sufficient proximity and made it fair, just and reasonable for the association to owe a duty to take reasonable care over the accuracy of its representations.

1. Appeal dismissed. Lord Clarke MR and Scott Baker LJ formed the majority and held that SPATA did not owe the claimants a duty of care in relation to the website statements.
2. The relevant principles governing negligent statements and pure economic loss included assumption of responsibility, the threefold approach and incremental development by analogy with established categories: Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank plc [2006] UKHL 28. The approaches overlap and should not be applied in isolation. Assumption of responsibility is assessed objectively and in context, applying the approach in Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 830.
3. The website was directed to prospective pool purchasers and was capable of influencing their choice of installer. That did not itself create sufficient proximity. The website had to be read as a whole, including its reference to an information pack containing a contract checklist. Objectively, SPATA could expect potential customers to obtain further information and make independent inquiries before relying on the website representations.
4. That feature meant that SPATA had not assumed legal responsibility for the accuracy of the statements without further inquiry. There was insufficient proximity, and it was not fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. Imposing liability would also have been an unwarranted extension of existing negligence law.
5. The fact that the representations appeared on a website did not attract a distinct legal test. The ordinary principles applied to the content and context of the particular website. An interactive website might produce a different result on different facts.
6. Lady Justice Smith dissented. She considered that the website presented SPATA as a trustworthy regulator and invited reliance on membership without requiring the information pack. She would have found a duty of care, subject to a 75 per cent reduction for contributory negligence.
7. The court did not determine quantum. Lord Clarke stated, alternatively, that damages in tort would be assessed on the assumption that the representations had not been made, rather than by reference to a contractual warranty measure.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed. Lord Clarke MR and Scott Baker LJ formed the majority; Lady Justice Smith dissented.
• Birmingham County Court: His Honour Judge Worster, judgment handed down 15 December 2008, held that SPATA owed no duty of care in making the website statements and alternatively assessed contributory negligence at 100 per cent.